Armistead Family History #6 - A New Home in Virginia Colony

                                              Settling in Elizabeth City County

In 1636 the Virginia Colony had a population of about 5,000.  By 1640 Virginia Colony had over 10,000 people, Plymouth and Massachusetts had just under 10,000 people, and the population of all of the colonies together was only 26,634, so as you can see, most of the population was centered in two colonies. By 1650 the population of Virginia was only 18,700 and still concentrated around the James River, with just a small area in Gloucester County just north of the York River. (1)  I put together a crude map below to give you an idea of the concentration of the population in 1650.

The area shaded in blue is obviously water located in the James and York Rivers, Chesapeake Bay, and Mobjack Bay.  The red shading shows where the population was located in 1650.  The dates indicate when the town or county was formed.  Map drawn by Moody Meixner using information from a map published by Houghton Mifflin Company.  

Back in England, King Charles I was on the throne but in the Virginia Colony William and Anne were settling into their new life.  Colonial records show William Armistead receiving a grant for headrights to 450 acres in Elizabeth City County on 7 July 1636. The said land "lying SE upon land of Mr. Southell, N.E. upon land of John Branch, E. upon the Cr. & W. into the woods.  Trans. of  9 pers:  Ann his wife, Rowland Owen, Rich Clements, Robt. Glenister, Yorath Dane, Rich. Banks, Robt. Kendall, Andr. Strecher, Gilbert Guy." This means William paid for 9 people to be transported to the Colony and was rewarded with 450 acres.  On 16 May 1638 he purchased another 300 acres in the same area when he completed a transaction with Richard Popeley.  (2)

Over the next two decades William would enter into several more transactions that we can find in existing records.  It is likely there may have been others that we no longer have records to.  He expanded his operations northward into Gloucester County along the Eastermost River and near Mobjack Bay when he transported 24 people and received 1213 acres.  At the same time another 600 acre transaction is recorded in the same area for transporting 12 people. (3)

William and his sons were among the earliest of the English settlers that opened up this land for farming and settlement by others from Europe.  He was truly one of the early pioneers.

Colonist building a house.  
Goodrich (1), S. G. A Pictorial History of the United States. Philadelphia: E. H. Butler and Company, 1883. http://ushistoryimages.com/sources.shtm 

Of course during this time William and Anne were also busy having and raising a family. I have not been able to find any surviving records for the exact dates of birth for their children, nor do I know if there were additional children that were born that died early.  I have only found four children that survived to adulthood. A possible birth date for the eldest of their children, William, is about 1634-1636. William was the oldest and there is a case to be made he was born in England, but there is no record for it.  The next child we know of is John, who I have estimated was born ca. 1638-1640. Anthony is the next child we know of and I place an estimated birth of around 1642-45 for him.  The last child is Francis, and I have placed a date of birth for her as ca. 1647-48.  If someone out there has documented dates or a reason for better estimates please let me know.

At the time of William and Anne's arrival in Virginia Colony, the governor was Sir John Harvey. He was appointed by the king in 1628 and served to 1639.  Because he remained mostly in England, there were acting governors in Virginia:  John Pott (1629-30), The Honorable John West (1635-1636), and Col. George Reade (1638-1639).  Sir Francis Wyatt was appointed for the years 1639-1642. (4)

Probably the most important or most significant appointment of governor came in 1642, with the appointment of Sir William Berkeley.  Berkeley was born into a landed gentry family in England in 1605.  Though his father died when he was only 12, Berkeley inherited land and was able to secure a proper education.  Between the status of his family and his education he was able to gain a place in the household of King Charles I in 1632.  This facilitated his entry into "The Wits", a court literary circle.  He flourished there, writing several plays.  He would then gain a knighthood for fighting in the First and Second Bishops' Wars (1639-40). (5)

Portrait of Sir William Berkeley, Governor of Virginia. Image ca. 1917 of a painting at Library of Virginia, after an original painting circa 1663.
Painter Hariott L.T. Montague after Sir Peter Lely - Page 146 of Mary Newton Stanard (1865-1929), Colonial Virginia, its People and Customs. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1917. From digital scan athttp://archive.org/details/colonialvirginia00stan
License details:  This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country.

In 1641 Berkeley was appointed to replace Sir Francis Wyatt as Governor of Virginia.  He proved to be a very capable governor.  He worked for a prosperous Virginia in four ways: "a diverse economy; free trade; a close knit colonial society; and autonomy from London." (6)  He used his own farm to experiment with many different crops to try and point the way to more diversity in the crops that were planted. This effort was not particularly successful but another initiative was.  In presiding over the General Assembly he asserted his position to push for more autonomy from England, allowing the Burgesses to share his powers in running the government.  The Assembly was, in effect a "miniature Parliament", assuming strong local rule. In addition he enacted friendly policies toward the Native Americans.  As we will see, this last action would prove to create a major crisis for him later on.  Because of this and other actions, Berkeley's positive influence was felt in Virginia for a long time.  He was looked on as a very successful governor until Bacon's Rebellion broke out in 1676, during his second stay in office.  I'll have more to say about Bacon's Rebellion later. (7)

Berkeley's first turn at governor came to an end in 1652.  When civil war broke out in England between the king and parliament, Berkeley supported the king.  Even after Charles I was beheaded in 1649 he continued to support the Stuarts.  He pulled this juggling act off until parliament sent troops to the colony in 1652 and he was forced to resign.  Parliament allowed him to keep his land in Virginia, and his head, I might add. (8)

Oliver Cromwell    
Painting: Samuel Cooper (died 1672) - National Portrait Gallery, London: NPG 514 
Oliver Cromwell, by Samuel Cooper (died 1672). See source website for additional information. This set of images was gathered by User: Dcoetzee from the National Portrait Gallery, London website using a special tool. All images in this batch have been confirmed as author died before 1939 according to the official death date listed by the NPG.

Oliver Cromwell was born in 1599 in Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, England.  He was born into a minor gentry family, he attended Cambridge University, and was elected to parliament 1628-1629.
He was elected again in 1640 and was in parliament when Civil War broke out between parliament and Charles I in 1642.  Cromwell had no military experience, but never-the-less he formed a force of Calvary, known as "Ironsides", and in a few years rose to the rank of lieutenant-general.  He was victorious in numerous battles against the king's forces and convinced the parliament to establish a professional army.  He would eventually be a driving force behind bringing Charles I to trial and bringing about his hanging. (9)

Title:  Portrait of King Charles I in his robes of state
Artist:  After Sir Anthony van Dyck
Description:  Studio version of much copied original in the Royal Collection, Windsor Castle
Date:  1636
Medium:  oil
Current location:  Royal Collection    
Object history:  Earl of Sheffield; Listed for sale at London, Christie's, 25 November 1911, lot 117 (unsold); Sold at Parkenthorpe, London, 1912; Sold to Mrs. Whitelaw Reid at New York, Anderson Galleries, 15 May 1935, lots 1195-96; Acquired by Mrs. Elinor Dorrance Hill, Newport, Rhode Island, who gave it to the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum, Hartford, Connecticut; Sold to anonymous buyer at New York, Christie's, 25 May 1999, lot 81 (as Workshop of van Dyck); Sold at New York, Sotheby's, 26 January 2012 for $86,500
References:  http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org:8080/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=65046
Source/Photographer:  http://www.she-philosopher.com/gallery/lely.html (original upload); http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/important-old-master-paintings-n08825/lot.197.html (higher resolution upload)

For the next few years Cromwell continued to have battles to win, which he did, and he continued to grow in strength politically, until he was strong enough to proclaim himself Lord Protector.  "In 1657 he refused the offer of the crown. At home Lord Protector Cromwell reorganized the national church, established Puritanism, readmitted Jews into Britain, and presided over a certain degree of religious tolerance.  Abroad, he ended the war with Portugal (1653) and Holland (1654) and allied with France against Spain, defeating the Spanish at the Battle of the Dunes (1658).  Cromwell died on Sep. 3, 1658 in London." (10)  That sounds like a very successful time as Lord Protector.  In addition, and probably most important, he would forever set the direction of parliament having control of the crown.  Parliament passed a number of laws to assure it's power in the future.  (However, the English never seem to be satisfied, because only three years after the crown was restored in 1660, Cromwell's body was dug up and hung, drawn and quartered.  Hmmm, not even sure what to say about that.)

Upon Cromwell's death in 1658, his son, Richard, became his successor, but was only lord protector for about 9 months before abdicating.  He fled to Paris but would later return to England under an assumed name, where he lived until his death in 1712. (11)

Well, so much for a Protectorate, let's bring back the royal kings and queens!  In May 1660, Charles II was made the King of England.  Charles was the second son of Charles I and Henrietta of France. Remember, just a few years ago they hung his dad but now they are bringing in the son as king and digging up poor old dead Oliver to hang.

Charles was born in 1630 and spent his teenage years fighting Parliament's forces.  When his dad was executed, he escaped to France and spent the next 8 years roaming around Europe.  He would marry Catherine of Braganza, but would have no "legitimate" children.  In 1660, after Richard Cromwell's abdication, Charles was invited back to England to become King Charles II. (12)

King Charles II by John Michael Wright or studio- National Portrait Gallery, London: NPG 531 
See source website for additional information. This set of images was gathered by User: Dcoetzee from the National Portrait Gallery, London website using a special tool. All images in this batch have a known author, but have manually examined for strong evidence that the author was dead before 1939, such as approximate death dates, birth dates, floruit dates, and publication dates.

So, as I mentioned before, although England had a king again, it's destiny was forever changed. Going forward there would be no royal prerogative and Parliament would have the superior role over the crown.  Political parties emerged in the Whigs and Tories. Charles' reign lasted for 25 years but was not a great reign.  Besides Charles' ineffectiveness as king, the country suffered two great tragedies.  In 1665 the Great Plague of London caused 100,000 deaths in one year and just one year later the Great Fire of London destroyed 13,200 houses and 81 churches. (13)  On the bright side during his reign, "British chemist Robert Boyle defines the inverse relationship between pressure and volume in any gas", (This would become known as Boyle's Law.) and in 1672 "Isaac Newton's experiments with the prism demonstrate the link between wavelength and color in light." (14)

"Charles' era is remembered as the time of 'Merry Olde England'.  The monarchy, although limited in scope, was successfully restored - the eleven years of Commonwealth were officially ignored as nothing more than an interregnum between the reign of Charles I and Charles II." (15)  Charles died in 1685 from a stroke.

With the Restoration of the king in 1660, Sir William Berkeley's fortunes brightened.  In that year he was appointed as governor of Virginia Colony again.  This time around Berkley's term as governor would not work out as well as the first.  

By the year 1660 many things had changed in the Armistead household.  I have not found any direct death records, but I believe both William and Anne, as well as their son William, were all dead by 1660.  In "York County Virginia Records, 1659-1662" I found the following reference: "I, John Armstead, as heir and one of the executors of Mr. William Armstead, dec'd, assignee of Mr. Mathew Bassett, impower Thomas Penrynn to implead and present John Insworth at county court and proceed agst him.  Last of Aug. 1660, Jno. Armstead,  Wit:  Walter Blake, Edward Goodall"  (All spelling as in original text.) (16)  John would have to be the only one still living to be heir because he was second oldest son behind William, Jr.  So at this time, only John, Anthony and Francis are still living.

Printed from Family Tree Maker charts for William Armistead.

As I have mentioned, William, Sr. was a large land owner, having operations in Elizabeth City County, York County, and Gloucester County.  It appears that as soon as John was old enough to handle the operation in Gloucester, William, Sr. sent him to manage that property.  In about 1665 John married Judith Robinson in Gloucester and became a very successful plantation owner in his own right.  They had four children, Judith, Elizabeth, Henry, and William.  Descendants of John would play very important roles in the history of the U.S.  I hope to spend some time later on this branch.  I have covered some of them in other posts that you may recall.

William and Anne's only surviving daughter, Frances, married three times, outliving her first two husbands, Rev. Justinian Aylmer, and Lt. Col. Anthony Elliott.  She then married Capt. Christopher Wormeley.  I am uncertain how many children she had, possibly two or four.  Frances died 25 May 1685.

Anthony Armistead, (1645-1726) the third son of William and Anne, stayed in Elizabeth City County.  By now you have noticed that I have put some of the names in bold type and underlined them.  If you haven't noticed you really weren't paying attention or have a big problem with your eyes. The reason for doing this is to try to help you with who my direct line ancestors are.  I think it will help keep things straight as I move down to each generation.  I have determined from my research that Anthony is the next in line of my ancestors. There are certainly disagreements out there about the Armistead's tree, in fact I have changed my tree a couple times, but I will proceed with giving my direct line as I see it at this point, because I believe it to be the most logical based on records I have read.  Anthony married Hannah Ellyson  (1648-1728) in about 1666.  Anthony is listed in the records mostly as Captain Anthony Armistead so I will use that as well.  They had five children: William (1667-1716) (who was a Major), Anthony (1668-1728) (who was a Lt. Col.), Robert (1674-1742), Hannah (1679-1748), and Judith (1680-1750). (17)  Some dates are estimates and some are accurate, being based on wills, newspapers, etc.

Printed from Family Tree Maker charts for Captain Anthony Armistead.

Captain Anthony Armistead and his elder brother John Armistead (referred to in records as "The Councilor") assumed important roles in the early Virginia Colony.  John Armistead, The Councilor, was high Sheriff of Gloucester County and also served in the Assembly in 1680-82, 1685-1686, and in 1688 was named to the Council of State. Captain Anthony was Captain of horse in the militia, served as Justice of the Peace, and was Sheriff in Elizabeth City County. He was elected to the Assembly as a Burgess in sessions, 1676-77, 1680-82, 1683-84, 1693, 1695-96, 1696-97, 1698, 1699, and 1703. He was on the "committee in 1700 that reported a revision of the laws that was approved by the general assembly in 1705." (18) (19)  Having been elected or appointed to these positions, tells us he was a large land owner and a man of exceptional influence in his county and the colony.

Being in the Assembly in 1676-1677 turned out to be an historical two years for Captain Armistead.   

Next time I will write about the Armisteads and Bacon's Rebellion in the years 1676-1677, the Virginia Colony, and England in the last part of the 17th Century.

References:

(1)  http://web.viu.ca/davies/h320/population.colonies.htm 
(2)  Nugent, Mell Marion, Cavaliers and Pioneers, Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants, 1623–1800, Vol One, Press of the Dietz Printing Co., Richmond, VA., 1934, pg. 45, Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, http://www.archive.org/details/cavalierspioneer00nuge,
(3)  Ibid., pg. 218.
(4)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colonial_governors_of_Virginia
(5)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Berkeley_(governor)
(6)  Ibid.
(7)  Ibid.
(8)  Ibid.
(9)  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cromwell_oliver.shtml
(10)  Ibid.
(11)  Ibid.
(12)  http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon49.html
(13)  Ibid.
(14)  Ibid.
(15)  Ibid.
(16)  Weisiger, III, Benjamin B.,  York County Virginia Records, 1659-1662, Iberian Publishing Co., Athens, Georgia, 1989.
(17)  Genealogies of Virginia Families, From the William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Vol I, Adams-Clopton, Indexed by Carol Lee Ford, Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc. , 1982, pg. 121.
(18)  Ibid. pg., 120-121.
(19)  Tyler, Lyon G., M.A.LL.D., History of Hampton and Elizabeth City Virginia, The Board of Supervisors of Elizabeth City County, Hampton, Virginia, 1922, pg. 27-28, 38.

Armistead Family History #5 - The Decision

                                          William and Anne Armistead

England Births and Christenings, 1538 - 1975 for Kirk Deighton, Yorkshire, England, shows a Christening date for William Armisteed, son of Anthony Armisteed.  The date is Aug 3, 1610, which indicates he was probably born a little earlier that year.  I've mentioned Kirk Deighton several times in previous posts and included maps indicating the location.  The Christening took place at All Saints Church, Yorkshire, England.

This is a copy of the record as it is listed on the FamilySearch website.  The citation is at the bottom of the page above.  Record of William Armisteed's Christening.

My cousin, Claudia, was fortunate enough to make a trip to England a few years ago and took several photographs of the old church.  Yes, I am very jealous and I have this little plan hatching in the back of my mind that someday soon Kay and I are going to make a trip to England so I can visit that church.  Anyone like to come along?

So just how old is this church where my ancestor was christened?  A church is mentioned in a survey made in 1086 which may have been located where the present church is located.  The existing north arcade is c1150-1175.  Additional alterations and additions were made in the 1300s, and again between 1425-50. Extensive rebuilding took place in 1849. The stained glass is Victorian. (Information from the website at: http://spofforthandkirkdeightonparish.co.uk/kirk-deighton)

Please be sure to read the captions under these pictures to see what Claudia had to say about them.

Claudia had this note about the church:  "The church was locked and we had to walk into town (two blocks) and call the man to let us in.  He was on his way our of town but when Graham told him we had come all the way from Texas, he came and let us in.  As we were walking up to the Church, he turned to me and said, 'So you are Armisteads then'?  We must be famous."          
All photographs courtesy of Claudia Brown.

From Claudia Brown, "All Saints Church, Kirk Deighton, Yorkshire, England: Picture of the iron gate at the front of the Church.  The people in the picture are my sister, Brenda Neve Rumbellow and her husband Graham.  I was fortunate to be able to meet them in England and Graham, an English citizen, took us on this tour to the Church.  Claudia Brown, September 2009."

"All Saints Church, Kirk Deighton, Yorkshire, England:  View of the church from the front walkway.  The caretaker told us that the Clock face had been replaced and the old one was in the churchyard.  When we talked to him about the baptism of William Armistead in 1610, he said that the baptistery font in the Church was the new one, circa 1874, (don't you love the antiquity of this place?) and that the original font was placed on top of the old clock face in the Churchyard."

Claudia mentioned above about the baptismal font.  This is a picture of the old font from William's 1610 baptism sitting on top of the old clock face.  That is pretty awesome to think William Armistead was christened from that font.

All photographs of All Saints Church are the property of Claudia Brown.

As I have noted previously, William was the first born of Anthony and Francis Armistead. Marriage records indicate William Armistead, Yeoman, and Anne Ellis, spinster, from Giggleswick, were married in 1632. From the records I have seen, I believe William and Anne had four children:  William, John, Anthony, and Francis.  It is quite possible there were other children born that did not survive.  The dates of birth and possibility of other children are up for speculation because, as we will see, this couple immigrated to the British Colonies in America a few years later and many records from this early period in the colonies have been lost.

Just a short 28 years after Jamestown was founded in 1607, and at the age of 25, William Armistead made the decision to emigrate and live in the fledgling colony that would eventually become the state of Virginia.  In 1635 there was a population of less than 5000 in the entire colony, mostly in the 6 counties along the James River.  William decided to head to Elizabeth City County, which had only been established the year before and had probably less than 500 colonists in the entire county. 

The Virginia Colony had gone through some very difficult times during the first 28 years, which I will get into later, and it seems to me there would have been a lot of reasons for not going.  Not the least of these would have been the possibility that you would not survive the ocean voyage from England. From the records it appears William made the trip in 1635 and then Anne came over alone in 1636.  She was a brave and devoted wife to make the trip alone.  I found in the records that many wives were afraid to make the trip, and I can't blame them.  Many wives refused to leave England, and families were split when the husband went on alone.  "One wife refused to follow her husband preferring to be, 'a living wife in England than a dead one in the sea'."  (1)

The page below lists Anne and the date she sailed to the colony from England.  I do not know if she had a child with her when she came.  It appears to me that small children may not have been listed.

In the list above Anne Armestead is the fourth one down.  It shows her arrival in 1636 and she was sponsored by her husband, William Armestead.  (Both spelled with an "e" instead of an "i". This list is from the book Early Virginia Immigrants by George Cabell Greer.

On the website "Understanding Your Ancestors", Leslie Albrecht Huber described a trip to the colony this way:  "The technicalities of leaving England were bewildering.  Emigrants needed licenses and passports (then a document that allowed one to 'pass the Port'). After 1634, they also had to have certificates of good conduct from their local minister and agree to take a loyalty oath.  Then the emigrant had to locate a ship. Since transatlantic voyages were still uncommon, finding one could involve a lot of searching and negotiations." (2)

Writing about the voyage itself Huber said, "Shipwreck, though greatly feared, wasn't the most notable danger.  Of the nearly two hundred voyages to New England in the 1630s, only one ended in disaster.  Even then, most of the passengers survived.  More threatening in reality was sickness.  Severe seasickness or dysentery plagued some passengers.  Fatal diseases were sometimes brought on board and spread quickly through the passengers in the small, confined spaces.  One ship, for example, arrived with small pox distributed among the passengers." (3)

In my blog a couple years ago I wrote about the difficult and dangerous trip that my Meixner ancestors made in 1881. This trip was nearly 250 years earlier than that. The ships were much smaller and were very susceptible to storms at sea and to disease that bred on ship.  However, according to Huber in her blog, "...overall the trip to New England, although frightening and uncomfortable, was relatively safe - safer than immigration to the New World would be during the mass migration of the 1800s." (4)  I think the key word there is "relatively" safe.  It was still very dangerous but maybe not as dangerous as in the 1800s.  (See Huber's blog at http://www.understandingyourancestors.com/wea/default.aspx  It is a very good site.)

Let's explore other reasons for or against going to the new colony.  One reason can be found in the marriage record which indicates William Armistead was a Yeoman, meaning he owned land.  As the first born son, he also stood to inherit land from his father.  It seems like he had things going pretty good in England, so why leave?  By 1635, Anne had most likely had their first child, so he probably had a young family under his responsibility as well.  So why would he head out in 1635, leaving his family behind for many months to try to make it in this new colony.  Maybe it was ambition, or pride, that made him want to head out and make it on his own.  Possibly the opportunities were few as far as expanding his land holdings in Yorkshire.  Despite the bad things going on in the colony, there were undoubtedly reports coming back of thousands of acres of fertile land and of the great opportunities for acquiring land.  The use of headrights gave a person of means an ability to expand his land holdings rapidly.  (More on headrights later.)  Or maybe it just came down to William being the adventurous type.  There could be many reasons, including events taking place in England, that may have influenced his decision.  One issue causing friction in England was religion, other issues were "widespread unemployment, bad harvests, and political turmoil". (5) I don't know all the pros and cons, but obviously the pros won out.  I would say my top guesses for why he decided to go would be ambition and opportunity.

In the book Albion's Seed, Four British Folkways in America,  David Hackett Fischer writes:  "The great majority of Virginia's upper elite came from families in the upper ranks of English society.  Of 152 Virginians who held top offices in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, at least sixteen were connected to aristocratic families, and 101 were the sons of baronets, knights and the rural Gentry of England."  He goes on to say in a footnote:  "Gentry Families included Armistead, ...". (6) (His list includes several other family names that I did not include here.)  I think it is interesting that Fischer has found in his research that the Armisteads were of Gentry stock.  I have thus far stated they were from the Yeoman class, because that is what the records stated.  Obviously William Armistead was well established to be able to come to the colony and start on his own and his descendants did go on to hold top offices in the colony. One estimate I saw stated 75% of colonists were indentured servants or in some way indebted when they arrived in the colony. (7) The cost of the trip was expensive and there was limited opportunity to get started on your own.  In addition to the cost of the passage, you had to bring your own food for the trip and also provisions to last until you could obtain land and raise a crop.  In the case of the 75% listed above, they could not afford to pay for their passage but were brought here by others.  In 1618, The Virginia Company set up rules for the "headright" system.  Because so few could afford the cost of the trip, the Virginia Company had to come up with a way to encourage immigration to the colony and they needed workers. The headright system consisted of a provision stating anyone settling in Virginia, or anyone paying to bring someone to Virginia, would receive fifty acres of land per person. Or said another way, fifty acres per "head". (8)  This is where "headright" came from. The indentured servants, of course, had to work off the cost of the trip by signing agreements to work for a certain number of years for the person who payed for their passage.  This could range from 4 or 5 years to 10 years.

I think it is safe to say that William Armistead was very well established and recognized the opportunity available if he was brave enough to make the trip to the colony.  I feel certain he understood he would be one of the elite or ruling class if he made the trip.  It was a big risk but that risk could result in big gains for him.  Later I'll show where William brought many people to Virginia and acquired significant land using headrights.

Before I move on, I want to step back and give you a little more history of the Virginia Colony.

Replica ship Susan Constant in port at Jamestown Settlement, a living history museum

JamestownShipsCC BY-SA 3.0
Uploaded by Citypeek
Warfieldian - Own work
Created on June 15 2007

In Dec of 1606 the Virginia Company sent three ships, Susan Constant, Godspeed, and Discovery, from England to North America to found a colony.  After five months, the ships reached the new land, sailed up the largest river, which they named the James River after the king, located an island that they found suitable for a colony, and proclaimed the name of the island to be Jamestowne Island.  On May 14, 1607, the surviving 104 men went ashore to establish the first enduring English settlement in America. (9)

Map of Jamestown Island, showing the terrain and location of the original 1607 fort. (Modern roads, causeway, and buildings not shown)

Map showing terrain of Jamestown Island (as it appeared in the middle of the 20th century). Indicated are the location where the 1607 James Fort was discovered (in 1994), as well as where it had traditionally thought to have been located.
License details:  This image or media file contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created as part of that person's official duties. As a work of theU.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain. See the NPS website and NPS copyright policy for more information.

As it turned out, the location selected was much less than desirable as a site for the colony.  In fairness to the leaders who selected the location they were following the Virginia Company's instructions for how they should choose the proper site.  But even with all the hardships to come the settlement survived and as William M. Kelso says in his book Jamestown, The Buried Truth, "The American dream was born on the banks of the James River." (10)  This is a wonderful little book that I recommend you read.  Also, I recommend you go to Virginia and visit Jamestown (as well as Williamsburg and Yorktown, etc.).  Mr. Kelso is the Head Archaeologist of the Jamestown Rediscovery Project.  He and his group have made some amazing discoveries on Jamestown Island and have re-written much of what was thought about Jamestown.  If you visit the site be sure to allow plenty of time to see the original site and all the archaeological digs going on plus the museum.  Also, go next door and see the reconstruction of the three ships that landed there. (That last item is something I did not do and now regret.)

Model of original Jamestown Fort.

Archaeological digs on the Jamestown Fort site.

Jamestown Church and graveyard.

Photographs property of Moody Meixner.  Taken Oct 11, 2011.

Description:  View of Jamestown Island today looking toward the statue of John Smith by William Couper [1] which was erected in 1909. The Jamestown Church, circa 1639, is in the left background.

Date:  13 May 2007
Source:  http://www.army.mil/-images/2007/05/13/4008/army.mil-2007-04-25-132212.jpg
Author:  NPS Photo

Additional colonists arrived in Jamestown over the next two years, but conditions at Jamestown remained severe.  In Jamestown People to 1800, Martha W. McCartney writes about a study of tree-ring data from a bald cypress tree near Jamestown Island, conducted by the University of Arkansas.  In the study they concluded there was a severe drought that lasted from 1606 to 1612.  This was the driest period in that area for hundreds of years. This condition created problems for the Native Americans as well as the colonists.  By the winter of 1609-1610 things were so bad that this period became known as the "Starving Time". (11)  By spring only sixty of 215 colonists that had arrived there survived. (12)  This little group decided to abandon the settlement and sailed a short way down river toward the Atlantic.  Fortunately, (though the demoralized group that was fleeing might not have seen it that way) they met supply ships and new leadership on their way to the colony so they turned back to the Jamestown Settlement.  After the arrival of the new supplies, Jamestown seemed to be rejuvenated.  Other hazards plagued the colonist, however, but more colonist continued to come.  By 1622 the colonists' rapid encroachment into the surrounding areas, which were Native American territories, created a volatile situation that culminated with the natives attacking the colonists on March 22nd.  As a "result...more than one-third of the colonists lost their lives." (13)

Never-the-less the colony survived and continued to expand in to other areas along the James River and along the Chesapeake Bay. Most of the other areas afforded a better environment for living and farming than Jamestown Island did, but Jamestown continued to serve as Virginia Colony's capital even as new colonists started settling in other areas. In 1619 a new governor of Virginia arrived, named Sir George Yeardley.  He implemented a subdivision of the colony into four large boroughs that spanned the James River.  Each borough was allowed to send two delegates or Burgesses to Jamestown to serve in an assembly. Designated as the assembly's sergeant-at-arms was the provost marshal of Jamestown.  "On July 30, 1619, delegates or Burgesses from 11 of the colony's 12 communities gathered in the church as members of the New World's first legislative assembly." (14)  Representative government in America began on that day. Governor Yeardley and his six councilors were also present.  By 1623 the governor and his council were convening regularly as a judicial body.  The assembly could not change the laws that were set down for the colony's governance but they could draft laws that then became subject to approval of the monarch.  Local courts were in place by 1625 in two of the boroughs.  In 1624 the Virginia Company's charter was revoked and the Virginia Colony became a colony of the Crown.  After that the monarch appointed the governor of the colony and his councilors and the governor appointed lesser officials.(15)

"In 1634 the colony was subdivided into eight shires or counties.  It was then that James City, Charles City, Elizabeth City, Henrico, Warwick, York, Isle of Wight, and Accomack counties were formed, replacing the four corporations (boroughs) that were established in 1619.  There were 4,914 settlers in the Virginia Colony in 1634, and new immigrants were arriving constantly." (16)  Each county had a court with justices of the peace, a sheriff, a clerk, and others like constables and tithe-takers.  Local life revolved around the county seat and that is where the Burgesses were elected. (17)

Map of Elizabeth City County.  This county no longer exists.  It was merged into Hampton City several years ago.

This is a Virginia highway map that I have marked up to show where Jamestown Island is located, the upper left green circle, and the James River, circled in the middle, and Elizabeth City County where is was (it is no longer in existence) and the Chesapeake Bay.

So this sets the stage for William Armistead to leave his home in England and come to the Virginia Colony and settle in Elizabeth City County.  I get excited when I think about William and Anne Armistead heading to the new world.  This is another defining moment in my family story, just as Frank and Theresia Meixner's decision to leave the Austrian Empire in 1881 was a defining moment.  Just think, these Armistead ancestors, William and Anne, are two of only 5,000 people that were there at this point in time.  They were part of the original settlers of Virginia and America.  My Armistead ancestors were participants in settling America, and participants in the new government in America.

The Armisteads are on the list of qualifying ancestors for the Jamestown Society, so if you are interested in joining the society you need to show how you are related to the first Armistead and you can become a member. Here is the address: http://www.jamestowne.org/

So a new life begins in the Virginia Colony for William and Anne.  How will this new life go?

References:
(1) http://www.understandingyourancestors.com/ia/settingSailToNE.aspx   UnderstandingYourAncestors.com by Leslie Albrecht Huber, © 2006, 2007, 2008. All rights reserved.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Fischer, David Hackett, Albion's Seed, Four British Folkways In America, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989, pg. 216.
(7) Ibid, pg 227.
(8) http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/va4_headrights.htm
(9) Kelso, William M., Jamestown, The Buried Truth, University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville and London, 2006, pg. 14-15.
(10) Ibid, pg. 1.
(11) McCartney, Martha W., Jamestown People to 1800, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, 2012, pg. 5-6.
(12) Kelso, pg. 20.
(13) McCartney, pg. 12.
(14) Ibid, pg. 9.
(15) Ibid, pg. 10.
(16) Ibid, pg. 12.
(17) ibid, pg. 12.

Armistead Family History #4 - Armisteads in England (Part 3)

                                                       Early Armisteads

James Charles Stuart was born on June 19, 1566 in Scotland.  His father was Lord Darnley and his mother was Mary Queen of Scots.  James' father was murdered in 1567, before James was even a year old.  His mother "was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne soon afterward due to her suspected involvement in the murder." (1) You'll also recall that Mary sought safety in England by seeking help from her cousin Elizabeth, Queen of England.  Instead of receiving help she was imprisoned and eventually executed.  When Mary abdicated the throne, James, at the age of 13 months, became King James VI of Scotland. (2)

Fast forward now, thirty-six years later, and Elizabeth, the Queen of England, dies childless.  King James the VI of Scotland becomes James I King of England.  This was the first time the two kingdoms were unified under one King.  James would be known as King James VI of Scotland and James I of England. Queen Mary must have been smiling somewhere.  Mary lost her kingdom but got the last laugh (sort of, she was dead after all) when her son took over for Elizabeth, the one who had her executed. With James' ascension to the throne, he began a long line of Stuart successors to the throne of England. (3)

Description:  King James I of England and VI of Scotland, by Daniel Mytens, 1621. National Portrait Gallery, London: NPG 109
Date:  See description
Source:  Scanned from the book The National Portrait Gallery History of the Kings and Queens of England by David Williamson, ISBN 1855142287.
Author:  Daniël Mijtens (circa 1590–circa 1647)  
Permission:   (Reusing this file) Reproduction of a painting that is in the public domain because of its age

King James was very well educated.  He was an accomplished writer and published several books.  Most of what he wrote was written as justification for his assertion of the Divine Right of Kings. (4)  Judgement by historians of James' rule has been mixed.  I'm going to point out a few things that I think had a major impact on history. I'll let you judge for yourself if James' reign was good or bad.

In 1606 King James chartered the Virginia Company of London.  It was formed as a company designed to make a profit for it's shareholders by founding an English Colony in America.  In 1607 the Virginia company landed 104 settlers in North America and named the new settlement "Jamestowne" in honor of King James. Jamestowne (the spelling later changed to Jamestown) was the first permanent English settlement on the American mainland.  Some historians called King James the "founding monarch of the United States". (5)

Description:  The seal of the London Company, also known as the Charter of the Virginia Company of London. The Latin phrase on the left oval "SIGILVM REGIS MAGNÆ BRITANIÆ FRANCIÆ ET HIBERNIÆ" means "Sign of the great king of Britain, Francia and Hibernia".
Date:  Between 1606 and 1624; originally uploaded to en.wikipedia on 16 August 2007.
Source:  Plates between pp. 29 and 30 of Wesley Frank Craven (1957, republished 11 April 2009) The Virginia Company of London, 1606–1624 [Jamestown 350th Anniversary historical booklet, no. 5], Williamsburg, Va.: Virginia 350th Anniversary Celebration Corporation (republished by Project Gutenberg as EBook #28555) OCLC: 22551439. The caption reads: "Virginia Seal. Courtesy Mrs. L. T. Jester and Mrs. P. W. Hiden." Image originally from the U.S. National Park Service Colonial Jamestown website accessed on 11 April 2004 (Internet archive of page text athttp://web.archive.org/ web/20040430213806/http://www.nps.gov/colo/Jthanout/VACompany.html.) Similar images of the seal can be seen athttp://www.preservationvirginia.org/rediscovery/page.php?page_id=22 and http://web.ukonline.co.uk/lordcornell/iwhr/va/via.htm. Transferred from en.wikipedia by Hejsa.
Author:  Probably the Virginia Company of London; original uploader was VirginiaProp at en.wikipedia.
Permission(Reusing this file):  This image is in the public domain due to its age.

OK, a show of hands now.  How many of you thought Plymouth, Massachusetts, was the first permanent settlement in North America?  Yes, I have my hand up too.  All I remember from school is talking about the Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock.  I guess they had a better public relations firm than Jamestown did.  More about this a little later but Plymouth, MA was not settled until 1620.  It was, however, the first permanent English settlement in New England but not in all of North America.  That distinction goes to Jamestown. Remember I told you to be careful about all of these places being "the first"?

In 1609 the Plantation of Ulster began.  For years England battled with Gaelic speaking clans in northern Ireland.  They were difficult if not impossible to manage for the English authorities.  Eventually England moved in with force and killed or pushed out most of these clans.  In 1609 northern Ireland was almost vacant.  King James wanted settlers to move into this area that were supportive of his rule.  He took over all the land in this area and re-distributed the land to new settlers from Scotland and northern England.  This is a very short description and an over simplification of a very important and complicated action.  Some say this action has had ramifications all the way to modern times.  The main reason I mention it is because, from what I have been able to find out, though I have not proven this, is that my Galbraith (later Galbreath) ancestors immigrated from Scotland to northern Ireland during the early or mid 1600s along with thousands of other people from Scotland.  These Scotsmen moved into virtually empty space and continued with their farming operations or working on farms just as they had in Scotland.  In other words, though they lived in Ireland now, they still considered themselves as being Scotsmen.  A century later these Scotsmen's descendants immigrated to the English Colonies in North America in large numbers. A large number settled in Pennsylvania, along with my ancestor, James Galbreath, in the early 1700s.  They later were called Scotch-Irish or Scots-Irish by historians but as I mentioned above, the people themselves still called themselves Scotsmen or Scottish.  The historians were the ones that coined the Scotch-Irish term years later. (6)  So this action certainly had far reaching effect on me and my family.  But more on that at a future date, I hope, when I write about the Galbreath line of my family tree.

Description:  Map of Ulster 
Date:  5 February 2004 Morwen 200x249 (28005 bytes) (map)
Source:  Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is (was) here
Author:  User Morwen on en.wikipedia
Permission(Reusing this file):  Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

The third action by King James the VI of Scotland and King James the I of England (boy that is a long title) that I will mention is one that everyone reading this already knows about and is probably very familiar with. In 1604 King James appointed 54 of the leading scholars in the kingdom to translate the bible into English. In 1611 the "Authorized Version of 1611" was published.  This translation became known as the King James Version of the Bible and eventually became the most popular version around the world. (7)  Indeed this version is still preferred by many even today.

King James died in 1625 at the age of 58.  Amazingly enough, royal power was passed orderly and peacefully to James' adult son, something that had not happened for some time.  Charles, the second son of James I, was born in 1600.  As the eldest surviving son he became King Charles I upon James' death.

Artist:  After Sir Anthony van Dyck
Title:  Portrait of King Charles I in his robes of state
Description:  Studio version of much copied original in the Royal Collection, Windsor Castle
Date:  1636
Medium:  oil
Current location:  Royal Collection    
Object history:  Earl of Sheffield; Listed for sale at London, Christie's, 25 November 1911, lot 117 (unsold); Sold at Parkenthorpe, London, 1912; Sold to Mrs. Whitelaw Reid at New York, Anderson Galleries, 15 May 1935, lots 1195-96; Acquired by Mrs. Elinor Dorrance Hill, Newport, Rhode Island, who gave it to the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum, Hartford, Connecticut; Sold to anonymous buyer at New York, Christie's, 25 May 1999, lot 81 (as Workshop of van Dyck); Sold at New York, Sotheby's, 26 January 2012 for $86,500
References:  http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org:8080/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=65046
Source/Photographer:  http://www.she-philosopher.com/gallery/lely.html (original upload); http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2012/important-old-master-paintings-n08825/lot.197.html (higher resolution upload)

Charles' reign was a turbulent one to say the least. It was marked by disagreement with Parliament, by religious upheaval, and by economic strife.  Through the years intense feelings over these issues built up and eventually led to civil war. The war was between Charles and Parliament.  (Again an over simplification for sake of time. Otherwise these blogs would be 100 pages long.)  Charles' forces were eventually defeated and Charles was captured and turned over to Parliament.  He was tried, convicted, and executed in 1649. (8) 

Has anyone been keeping count of how many Kings and Queens and assorted others have lost their heads during the 150 years I have written about? I don't remember how many either, but it has been a bunch.

Artist:  Paul Delaroche (1797–1856)
Title:   The Execution of Lady Jane Grey
Date:  1833
Medium:  oil on canvas
Accession number NG1909
Object history 1902: bequeathed to National Gallery by the Second Lord Cheylesmore
Inscriptions Signature and date
Source/Photographer The National Gallery online
Permission(Reusing this file) This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. The work of art itself is in the public domain for the following reason:  This work is in the public domain in the United States, and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 100 years or less.
This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights.
The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain".This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted; see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for details.

I have followed the comings and goings of the heads of the nobility (that's a little pun there).  Now, I want to take a look at the rest of the country and see what life was like during the 1500s for the Armisteads and the various social classes.

There were four social classes at this time.  The Nobility, which I have talked about, the Gentry, the Yeoman, and finally the Laborer.  What was work like for the people in each social class?  What were the living conditions like?

By 1500 England had been settled for a long time, but there were large amounts of land still available to be populated.  Two centuries of plague had precipitated a sharp decline in populations and England was only starting to make its recovery.  England's population in 1500 was about two million.  This number would increase to five million by 1650.  In 1500 only one person in ten lived in a town in England.  Serfdom was starting to disappear but that did not change the fact most of the population, which was the Labor class, still worked for the Gentry and Yeoman classes.  After the dissolution of the priory's in 1536-40, more land was made available but the owners of land in the lowlands started to enclose areas for their exclusive use in raising sheep for wool, leather, and meat. These lands had previously been "commons" where the labor class grazed their livestock, maybe a cow or sheep, so they could have butter, milk, and cheese to sell. When the commons were enclosed, the labor class no longer had a place to raise their livestock.  Many left the farm and went to the towns to try to find a way to make a living. (9)

Labor/Poor Class.
http://sites.duke.edu/midsummer/category/background-information/social-cultural-and-economic-significance/    

The average lifespan was low in England.  Disease was the most prolific killer, particularly among the young. Poor sanitation contributed to this problem.  It was a struggle to live until you were 30, but if you did you had a good chance to make it to 60. (10)  "In 1555-59 bad harvests followed by another influenza like epidemic killed more than one in twenty of the English people."  "About half the people in England were poor." (11) They suffered from a lack of food, clothes, shoes, and in the city, from a lack of shelter.  In some parts of London 15 or 20 of the poor crammed into live in one room. Many were homeless.  In the countryside the poor were farm laborers.  Wages were low, with both parents and children doing what they could to survive. This is a quick snapshot of the labor class, the bottom of the social order. (12)  They lived difficult lives to say the least.

On the upper end of the scale, but just below the Nobility, was the Gentry Class.  The Nobility comprised only about 55 families in England and the Gentry Class comprised only about 5% of the population.  The Gentry Class also consisted of wealthy men and were large land holders. The lower classes looked up to the Gentry and Kings and Queens looked to the Gentry to enforce laws and maintain order.  They were appointed Justices of the Peace and Judges of the local courts.  They set the food prices and collected taxes, which were used to help the poor.  "Knights, Squires, Gentlemen, and Gentlewomen composed the Gentry social class." (13)

Gentry Class.
http://sites.duke.edu/midsummer/category/background-information/social-cultural-and-economic-significance/  

Making up the class below the Gentry, but above the Labor class, was the Yeoman. They were not rich like the Gentry nor poor like the Laborer.  Yeomen were considered the middle class of this time.  They owned land and were comfortable but they worked very hard to earn their living.  Though they lived a good life they were never-the-less still subject to ruin if disease struck their livestock or some other misfortune hit them. Besides being hard workers, the Yeomen also were generally very religious compared to the Gentry or Nobility.  This class included craftsmen, farmers, and tradesmen. (14)

Yeoman Class.
http://sites.duke.edu/midsummer/category/background-information/social-cultural-and-economic-significance/    

The Armisteads were in the Yeoman Class.  Robert, John, Roger, and Anthony were all farmers as indicated by their wills.  It appears that sheep raising was an important part of their farms.  Leeds, a town just a few miles south east of Kirk Deighton, was the wool center of England in the 1500s, so I would think sheep raising was prevalent in that area. Also, in the four wills I read, bushels of wheat and barley were bequeathed along with sheep, oxen, ploughs, and farming equipment.  That was in addition to their "farm holds, and leases". (15)

Though it seems that most of the early Armisteads were farmers, there were also a number of Armisteads in the Clergy.  There were also many Armisteads who were champions of education as indicated by the fact they were benefactors, Head Masters, and Governors of grammar schools in the area.

As a reminder, I am using the spelling of Armistead, but remember there were several different spellings in the records.  While I am on that subject, I want to quote from the website www.surnamedb.com.  It states, regarding the name of Armistead, "The unusual and interesting name, long associated with Yorkshire, is of medieval English origin, and is a topographical surname denoting residence by a hermit's cell.  The derivation is from the Middle English "(h)ermite", hermit, and "stede", place, ultimately from the Old French "ermite", and Olde English "stede".  The local pronunciation of the word "ermite" was "armit", hence the early phonetic spelling Armetstede..."  "The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Laurencias del Armetsted, which was dated 1379, in the 'Poll Tax Returns Records of Yorkshire', "...  "Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation.  In England this was known as Poll Tax." Topographical surnames were among the earliest created, since both natural and man-made features in the landscape provided obvious and convenient means of identification in the small communities of the Middle Ages." (16)

We know the Armisteads I have mentioned (Robert, John, Roger, Anthony, William) were all in Yorkshire near Kirk Deighton.  But where did their ancestors come from?  Did they move here from somewhere else? To try and pinpoint the Armisteads origins, I looked at a website by Kenrick Armitstead.  (Note the spelling of his name.)  In a very well written post on his site, Mr. Armitstead takes the name back to the ancient parish of Giggleswick. (My personal favorite parish in England.  I just love saying it!)  In his article Kenrick Armitstead states that Giggleswick is located in the West Riding of Yorkshire and that it was a Norse settlement.  The name means "the wick or village of Gikel". Also, he says "Astride the boundary between Giggleswick and Clapham, it's western neighbor, lies the farmhouse known as Armitstead.  There was originally a hamlet here, but all that remains of it is the farm together with outbuildings containing various remains of previous houses."  (17)  There must have also been a hermit cell near by to give the origin of the name but he doesn't mention one in this article.

Hermit Cell
http://www.misyononline.com/new/may-jun2013/peace-peace 

Again quoting from Mr. Armitstead's article regarding our previously mentioned Laurence de Armitstead.  "A Franklin (later this became Yeoman) was a farmer not of gentle birth who owned his own land, and in 1379 Laurence de Armitstead was the only Franklin in Giggleswick, the highest taxpayer in the village apart from Robert Stainford, the Lord of the Manor..." (18)

Kirk Deighton is located about 45 miles east of Giggleswick per google maps.  I would think that this distance would not have been too far to expect a younger son that did not inherit land to move there and try to get his start.  Kenrick Armiststead, however, advances the proposition that the Armitsteads worked for the noble Percy family or as he put it, "...were numbered among their retainers..."  In other words they owned some land and leased some land from the Percy family.  Because the Percy family was the primary land owner in Giggleswick and also in Kirk Deighton, some of the Armitsteads would have moved into the Kirk Deighton area to farm and work the Percy family's land.  (19)  This branch of the family in Kirk Deighton, at some point, began to spell their name as Armistead.  You may remember another connection I mentioned previously between these two parishes.  William Armistead of Kirk Deighton married Anne Ellis of Giggleswick.

On this map you can see Giggleswick, close to Settle, Kirk Deighton close to Wetherby, and Skipton, where Ermystead's Grammar School is located.  All located within a close proximity.  
Google Maps.

What conclusions can we draw from all this?  Probably not any absolutes but taken all together I think there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that my line of Armisteads goes back through Kirk Deighton and then to Giggleswick Parrish in England.

I think I have promised before to get to William and Anne, but then I have gotten long winded on something else.  Will I be writing about Anne Ellis and William Armistead next time?  Well, you'll just have to tune in and see for yourself.

References:
(1)  http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm
(2)  Ibid
(3)  Ibid
(4)  Ibid
(5)  Ibid
(6)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster
(7)  http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kinginde.htm
(8)  http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon47.html
(9)  http://www.historytoday.com/steven-gunn/britain-1500
(10)  http://www.historytoday.com/steven-gunn/britain-1500
(11)  http://www.lukas-krumnacker.de/Englisch/British-history/1500-1750/index.htm
(12)  http://www.historytoday.com/steven-gunn/britain-1500
(13)  http://sites.duke.edu/midsummer/category/background-information/social-cultural-and-economic-significance/
(14)  Ibid
(15)  Harris, john Michael, Camberwell, London, England.  Article placed on the Enchanted World website:  http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~enchantedworld/Armistead/index-english.htm
(16)  http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Armistead
(17)  http://www.fitzwalter.com/afh/Armitstead/armithist1.htm  
(18)  Ibid
(19)  Ibid